Yes and any proceeds would go back into public services where it is needed. I don't have a problem with the Denmark model the quote describes, as I
didn't with the Swedish model of the 70s. While I personally have socialist ideals, I don't think the term is constant; it is 'socialisms'.
Liberalists sit on the fence and will not commit, I think that is the practical difference, but to be realistic we cannot believe that the capitalist
world will change - it is too reliant upon the current system; all we can hope for are more socialistic policies within capitalism, hence my previous
post.

Again though you mean liberal policies. What are socialist policies?

Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production, as capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Other than that any
so called "socialist policies" are polices of the organization, not of socialism. For example Marxism has it's own ideology, but that doesn't
make that socialist ideology just because Marxism is a socialist movement. Capitalism is still the private ownership of the means of production
regardless of anything else anyone decides to attach to it's meaning.

Point is what is important is the original definition of the term, not what has been attached to it over the decades.

The original definition of capitalism, for example, by Louis Blanc was, "The appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others."
Proudhon defined it as, "Economic and social regime in which capital, the source of income, does not generally belong to those who make it work
through their labour." Marx refined the definition to "The private ownership of the means of production". A system whereby the private owner
hires labour, and makes their living from the 'surplus value' created by paying the worker for less than they produce. All the definitions fit, but
Marx defined it more distinctly.

One way to prove this is by looking at Anarchism. Anarchists were socialists, obviously not pro-government.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" Mikhail Bakunin. Marxism was considered state-socialism by the anarchists, even though the Marxist state was
supposed to be temporary, and the final goal a stateless society. The only way we can have a stateless society is with worker ownership.

"It is not an overstatement to say, based on the words of the teachers who filled the rooms at the Marxism Conference, that the Teachers agenda and
the Marxist agenda is one and the same.

Welcome to the New Education of your children."

That's right america - they are comming. Like in the movies they will strike from the inside!
Better go buy yourself a gun. THEY ARE COMMING FOR YOUR CHILDREN!
Oh won't someone please think of the children!

No it isn't. Socialism is worker ownership, period. That is the goal, nothing else.

there is this, and many more

hell I could make one now.

Market socialism

For the libertarian socialist proposals sometimes described as "market socialism", see mutualism (economic theory). For the economic system in
People's Republic of China, see socialist market economy.

Market socialism refers to various economic systems where the means of production are either publicly owned or cooperatively owned and operated for a
profit in a market economy. The profit generated by the firms would be used to directly remunerate employees or would be the source of public finance
or could be distributed amongst the population through a social dividend.

Theoretically, the fundamental difference between market socialism and a non-market socialism is the existence of a market for the means of production
and capital goods. Market socialism is distinguished from models of mixed economies, because unlike the mixed economy, models of market socialism are
complete and self-regulating systems. Additionally, market socialism is contrasted with social democratic policies implemented in capitalist market
economies.

That is not the 'ten planks of communism'. It is the outline of the temporary Marxist workers state that would lead to communism. Marx considered
those steps necessary to reorder society in order to move from capitalist production to socialist production. Once that was achieved the state would
dissolve. It is taken out of context without the rest of the text. Marxism is not communism, it was a movement for communism. Communism exists
outside of Marxism.

The Commie Festo is not an explanation of communism. Read the Manifesto and you would stop posting this nonsense. It's only 64 pages and cheap to
buy.

From back cover of my copy...

"...It [the Manifesto] presents an analytical approach to the class struggle (historical and present) and the problems of capitalism, rather than a
prediction of communism's potential future forms"

no it is a mix of public, private for profit (corporate), AND worker ownership.

read the definition

Market socialism refers to various economic systems where the means of production are either publicly owned or cooperatively owned and operated
for a profit in a market economy.

Read your own quote. It says cooperative not corporation.

Cooperative, as in a workers cooperative, worker owned.

If there is private ownership involved it would not be socialism, no matter what they tried to call it. I mean American "libertarianism" is not
Libertarianism, see my sig.

Publicly owned is another way of saying worker owned. Even though technically it should say common ownership, as public ownership is a form of
capitalist private ownership. It's a common mistake. That article is not the best.

The acknowledged aim of socialism is to take the means of production out of the hands of the capitalist class and place them into the hands of the
workers. This aim is sometimes spoken of as public ownership, sometimes as common ownership of the production apparatus. There is, however, a marked
and fundamental difference...

corporations exists in socialist countries as a co-op. Share holders are what? If it is for profit, who do you think gets that profit? The workers?
No, the share holders, and they still exist in socialisms because of this.

that my friend is corporatism. A whole other beast, but really everything we are talking about. The perceived ills of capitalism, and those of
socialism.

It is the divide maker, nation breaker, bank maker...lol

really though, that is how private ownership exists in socialism, through market socialism favoring corporatism.

It is a huge loop hole that allows leadership, both public and private to avoid sharing profit.

Very animal farm.

this conversation was fun with you all, but that is really the high point as I see it. This is the core issue and this conversation flowed rather well
into the root cause.

Like I said I think there are socialistic ideals within the existing capitalist system, Denmark here being one example and that's realisticly the
most we can hope for. It can not a black and white issue of 'socialist or not', and I fear semantics are spoiling a good debate.

Originally posted by xuenchen
So you are saying that the corruption will somehow kill itself off or something ?

What corruption are you talking about?

Who stops it and when does the "codeword" become the "alarm" ?

What? Corruption only happens when there is something to corrupt. You have to be a bit more specific I don't understand your riddles, or read
minds.

How long are the temporary outlines supposed to take ?

Of Marxism? I don't know I'm not a Marxist.

Perhaps the real plan was to never really get "there".

Who's real plan? Marx?

Perhaps it's all a "banker's dream" from the start.

No it wasn't. You're talking about the Marx thing. Again Marx is not communism. If you have a problem with Marxism that's fine, all Anarchists
agree with you. Anarchists are socialists, so that destroys your argument.

I don't think your definition of socialism holds at all. Socialism does not equal equality. Socialism is socialized ownership of production, and
despite theories about co-ops and such, the only attempts at socialism in the real world has been state ownership of means of production and state
authority of distribution. Ownership by the workers is achieved through communism, which has only ever been tried by the USSR and that only from about
1918 to 1921, professor P Boettke wrote a nice article on those years. The reason they switched to socialism permamnently thereafter until the USSR's
dissolution was that production absolutely crashed as they tried to implement a real communist system. So state ownership it was to be.

The whole problem with both ideologies is that they ignore how people actually behave. I can't recall the exact details but as the USSR moved into
Communist party dictatorship, a conductor of one of their many outstanding orchestras (The Russians know epic music) was told he was going to be paid
the same as some guy who cleaned the orchestra hall. His retort was to say that the janitor could do the conducting then while he pushed the broom.
People need a reason to excel, or they just simply won't excel. There's no incentive. Why work harder and longer when it won't reward you? Humans
operate on (mostly) rational self-interest. This why a Republic, a rule of laws and not of men, works best. Put together a fair set of rules, a system
for the society to take care of those who are unable to participate fully in the game be it phyisical or mental impairment, and let those who aspire
to excel do so. The laws and court system are structured so as to minimize abuses of power, and the laws protect minority opinion from being over run
by majority 'mob' rule.

As far as the Manifesto, read it as a college sophomore. Find me one instance ever in history, just one, when an organiztion as powerful as
centralized government voluntarily 'withered away'. The people with that power do not give it up. Ever.

Like I said I think there are socialistic ideals within the existing capitalist system, Denmark here being one example and that's realisticly the
most we can hope for. It can not a black and white issue of 'socialist or not', and I fear semantics are spoiling a good debate.

It's not semantics it's important to understanding what socialism actually is.

Everyone of you is confusing Liberalism with Socialism. So called socialist ideals you talk about are liberal ideals. Social programs are a liberal
idea.

I am trying to point out the massive conspiracy to hide the truth of what socialism really is. If you look at the history you can see how the state
in many countries lied in order to maintain power. This all happened when the working class was very powerful, and a serious threat to the
establishment.

People keep dismissing socialism simply because they do not understand what it actually is. So no, it has nothing to do with semantics.

I'm not being dismissive with the semantics thing. I still insist that socialism equals equality, and not necessarily strict communism. You can take
the path to Stalinist Russia or the Swedish democratic socialist model of the 70s/early 80s.

I'm not being dismissive with the semantics thing. I still insist that socialism equals equality, and not necessarily strict communism. You can take
the path to Stalinist Russia or the Swedish democratic socialist model of the 70s/early 80s.

You can insist all you want but socialisim is: socialized ownership of production and authority over distribution. I want this $1 bill in my pocket to
be worth $100, but it still only counts as 1-it's definitional and exclusionary of aspirations I might have. And despite your hope in that ideology,
it doesn't guarantee equality at all. Take the USSR again. I'm sure you've at least heard of the Military Industrial complex and railed against it (I
know I have at least). In the USSR, Union of Societ Socialist Republics, it actually worked out exactly the same way,only they called it the Metal
Eaters Alliance. Here's how it worked in both the US and USSR: If you were a Colonel in the Soviet Army, or the US Air Force, and you wanted to become
a general, you had to show some savvy in aquiring more and/or better weapons/resources for your branch of the services. If you were a scientist for US
research company or a Soviet think tank and you wanted to get your own lab to even more expensive research, you had to invent those weapons. And if
you were sales rep for a US weapons manufacturer, or a bureaucrat at the Soviet Ministry of Heavy Machine Building, you got promoted or aquired access
over more resources (moved up the career ladder in other words) by bringing those parties together to make something.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.